"Long" hair on men

[Smellin Coffee]

I also have no desire to dress like a woman (except on special occasions )).

Doing so did bail Bugs Bunny out a time or two.

  And you are correct in that I won't answer to God for what others do.  On the other hand I believe God will bring judgment upon a nation that "normalizes" homosexuality.

And this is where we part in our beliefs. It seems to me in the OT that God judged nations based on what they did to others (Sodom included) and not on specific sexual proclivities or immoral habits. The prophets continued to harp on the issues of immorality, idolatry and lack of benevolence in bringing Israel back yet there seemed to be Sodom-like behaviors (like the Tribe of Benjamin - see Judges 19). So I don't see homosexuality any less immoral than say, burning witches, murdering babies or hanging folks of another ethnicity.  I don't see how God would deem homosexuality any worse than that.

This does matter to me.  I'm not saying it should become a hobby horse but, yes, a thousands times, yes, preachers need to preach against it.

Opinion noted.

Acceptance of Homosexuality is not the cause of God's Judgment. It is a road sign (as are many others) of where you are on the road to such judgment.  The road is laid out in Romans 1 and begins with holding truth in unrighteousness and being unthankful and ends with taking enjoyment in those who do such things (all the sins listed) which does concern me in the media we involve ourselves in.

And the road sign exists to show there are dangers ahead meaning that the road sign isn't the danger in and of itself.

 

[prophet]

Could it be that Paul was warning against exactly what is happening today? 
The sexes have become so confused and clouded. 
Obviously part of the homosexual agenda, but we DARE not criticize the homosexual agenda.
There is no distinctiveness between the sexes anymore except the plumbing.
And even that doesn't matter any more. 
Like the almond joy commercial, "Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't."
Sometimes you feel like a guy, sometimes you don't.
Hmm, today I feel like a woman, guess I'll use the ladies room.
There is a private elementary/middle/high school near me, 20K a student per year that has had assemblies saying:
Don't get alarmed if you go in the bathroom and see someone of the opposite sex there...
No lie.  One of their employees goes to my church.
Girls want to look like and be like guys, Guys want to look like and be like gals. 
God wants distinction to be outward.
Less confusion that way. 
Man wants to confuse the issue.

It makes one ask, "Does not God want modesty in dress as well as a differentiating of the sexes in dress and appearance?"

To show you how confused the issue is getting, read this:
"Lesbians upset by straight women who dress butch."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415990/guardian-column-straight-women-baggy-clothes-are-appropriating-lesbian-culture

It's almost like our dress identifies us, isn't it? 

Makes you wonder.  The world has it pegged.

They still throw on a pretty dress at their wedding, or at Prom, or a dress dinner, or a Ball, or, or, or....

 

[Citadel of Truth]

Acceptance of Homosexuality is not the cause of God's Judgment. It is a road sign (as are many others) of where you are on the road to such judgment.  The road is laid out in Romans 1 and begins with holding truth in unrighteousness and being unthankful and ends with taking enjoyment in those who do such things (all the sins listed) which does concern me in the media we involve ourselves in.

And the road sign exists to show there are dangers ahead meaning that the road sign isn't the danger in and of itself.

This is not an accurate analogy in the least. That's all I'm going to say because every time I say something I find out later that what I was responding to was said in jest. 

 

[16KJV11]

Acceptance of Homosexuality is not the cause of God's Judgment. It is a road sign (as are many others) of where you are on the road to such judgment.  The road is laid out in Romans 1 and begins with holding truth in unrighteousness and being unthankful and ends with taking enjoyment in those who do such things (all the sins listed) which does concern me in the media we involve ourselves in.

And the road sign exists to show there are dangers ahead meaning that the road sign isn't the danger in and of itself.

This is not an accurate analogy in the least. That's all I'm going to say because every time I say something I find out later that what I was responding to was said in jest.

Nah, he means it....

 

[TidesofTruth]

I would understand your comments better if you would define your pronouns.

 

[Walt]

Do you think the Nazarite Vow was for that dispensation, or do you think it is still relevant for today?

Clearly, the "norm" was for Jewish men to have short hair, or a man taking a Nazarite vow would not be noticeable.

Nothing like the Nazarite vow shows up in the New Testament commands to Christians, so I assume that such a vow is only for Jews.

The Scriptures clearly tell us that it is shameful for a man to have "long" hair and that a woman should have long hair as a "covering".

Thus, it seems logical that the Scripture is telling us that a woman's hair should cover something on her that is not covered on a man.  There is head, face, eyes, nose, mouth, ears, neck that could be covered.  Clearly not the head (scalp), since even short hair covers that. Eyes, nose, and mouth don't make sense.  That leaves ears and/or neck.

When I was in college, a pastor claimed that the roots of the Greek word translated "covering" carried the concept of "down the sides", and thus ears. He told us that he believed that the New Testament rule was that men should have their ears uncovered with hair, and that women should have hair over their ears.

I've never had reason to check up on what he said; I've always tried to keep my hair off of my ears.

Very well thought out.  Thank you.

Why go into detail on these things from the pulpit.

I'm sorry but when I show up on Sunday morning, Sunday night or Wednesday night or any other time to hear preaching I DO NOT GO TO HEAR HOW LONG OR SHORT ME OR MY WIFES HAIR SHOULD BE.

Because it is something that the Bible discusses.  Preachers have a command to preach the "whole counsel of God" (everything in the Bible).

Granted, if he is harping on this ONE thing every time you go, he's pretty limited, but I see it is perfectly valid.  We covered it in college in this detail when he was preaching through I Cor

 

[Walt]

When the identifier should be what Jesus said:

By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.

My Jack Hyles Bible says "... if you have really high standards." 

 

[Walt]

Do you think the Nazarite Vow was for that dispensation, or do you think it is still relevant for today?

Clearly, the "norm" was for Jewish men to have short hair, or a man taking a Nazarite vow would not be noticeable.

Nothing like the Nazarite vow shows up in the New Testament commands to Christians, so I assume that such a vow is only for Jews.

The Scriptures clearly tell us that it is shameful for a man to have "long" hair and that a woman should have long hair as a "covering".

Thus, it seems logical that the Scripture is telling us that a woman's hair should cover something on her that is not covered on a man.  There is head, face, eyes, nose, mouth, ears, neck that could be covered.  Clearly not the head (scalp), since even short hair covers that. Eyes, nose, and mouth don't make sense.  That leaves ears and/or neck.

When I was in college, a pastor claimed that the roots of the Greek word translated "covering" carried the concept of "down the sides", and thus ears. He told us that he believed that the New Testament rule was that men should have their ears uncovered with hair, and that women should have hair over their ears.

I've never had reason to check up on what he said; I've always tried to keep my hair off of my ears.

This is still the best interpretation that I have read on this thread.

I wish I could take credit for this, but (as mentioned earlier), the pastor I had while in college taught through I Cor, and I remembered this very reasonable (to me) interpretation of the passage.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

OK, here is a question to muddy the waters a bit more.

If the reason for men to have short hair is to distinguish between the sexes, assuming sexual identification is a necessity at all times for some odd reason, why wouldn't their wearing beards be the distinguished identity marking?

 

[BALAAM]

I would understand your comments better if you would define your pronouns.

Aboard, About, above, across, after, against, along........ Oh wait, those are prepositions. (anyone who had hac English would know what this is about) Some things never leave your mind!

 

[cast.sheep]

OK, here is a question to muddy the waters a bit more.

If the reason for men to have short hair is to distinguish between the sexes, assuming sexual identification is a necessity at all times for some odd reason, why wouldn't their wearing beards be the distinguished identity marking?

Excellent point.

 

[16KJV11]

OK, here is a question to muddy the waters a bit more.

If the reason for men to have short hair is to distinguish between the sexes, assuming sexual identification is a necessity at all times for some odd reason, why wouldn't their wearing beards be the distinguished identity marking?

Excellent point.

One time I was at the mall and I was behind two blondes walking side by side...blond as could be, long blond flowing hair.  From the behind they both looked like women. 
I remember being quite shocked when one turned towards the other and sported a beard!  ???

 

[bgwilkinson]

OK, here is a question to muddy the waters a bit more.

If the reason for men to have short hair is to distinguish between the sexes, assuming sexual identification is a necessity at all times for some odd reason, why wouldn't their wearing beards be the distinguished identity marking?

Excellent point.

One time I was at the mall and I was behind two blondes walking side by side...blond as could be, long blond flowing hair.  From the behind they both looked like women. 
I remember being quite shocked when one turned towards the other and sported a beard!  ???

What the beard gave him away in spite of the nice disguise?

 

[patriotic]

OK, here is a question to muddy the waters a bit more.

If the reason for men to have short hair is to distinguish between the sexes, assuming sexual identification is a necessity at all times for some odd reason, why wouldn't their wearing beards be the distinguished identity marking?

I worked in a women's clothing store. I've seen a few women who could give some men viable competition in a beard contest.

Bless their hearts.

 

[16KJV11]

OK, here is a question to muddy the waters a bit more.

If the reason for men to have short hair is to distinguish between the sexes, assuming sexual identification is a necessity at all times for some odd reason, why wouldn't their wearing beards be the distinguished identity marking?

I worked in a women's clothing store. I've seen a few women who could give some men viable competition in a beard contest.

Bless their hearts.

And there was this gal I envied at the Security Desk who was allowed to sport a mustache, while I wasn't! 

 

[RAIDER]

OK, here is a question to muddy the waters a bit more.

If the reason for men to have short hair is to distinguish between the sexes, assuming sexual identification is a necessity at all times for some odd reason, why wouldn't their wearing beards be the distinguished identity marking?

For some reason God chose hair on the head.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

OK, here is a question to muddy the waters a bit more.

If the reason for men to have short hair is to distinguish between the sexes, assuming sexual identification is a necessity at all times for some odd reason, why wouldn't their wearing beards be the distinguished identity marking?

For some reason God chose hair on the head.

Yep. These guys can easily pass for being women...

 

[RAIDER]

OK, here is a question to muddy the waters a bit more.

If the reason for men to have short hair is to distinguish between the sexes, assuming sexual identification is a necessity at all times for some odd reason, why wouldn't their wearing beards be the distinguished identity marking?

For some reason God chose hair on the head.

Yep. These guys can easily pass for being women...

I would have written 1 Corinthians 11 differently too. 

 

[Citadel of Truth]

Barnes says, concerning verse 14 and long hair on men:

It is a shame unto him. It is improper and disgraceful. It is doing that which almost universal custom has said appropriately belongs to the female sex.

Poole says:

The apostle arguing, that as the male and female sex are artificially distinguished by garments, and it was the will of God they should be so, so they should also be distinguished by the wearing of their hair; and it was no less shame for a man to wear his hair like a woman, than to wear garments like a woman.

 

[subllibrm]

Yep. These guys can easily pass for being women...

Hubba, hubba!

Er, wait a minute.

Never mind.